WHAT IS THIS ABOUT?
There seems to be a fashion boomlet in Peoria. I was briefly there this week and saw a large number of women wearing fairly casual shorts and tops and really high heels out in public (Restaurant, Court House, Quite a few at an upscale Mall. Based on their vehicles and the places I saw this look, these were not "working girls". These were wealthy or upper middle class women. It's gotta be a pain for them and not very practicle (who wants to walk a mall in that Unie).
Is the "LA Ho' " look sweeping the nation and I'm just the last to hear about it?
Strange.
posted by UMRBlog @ 06:40
17 comments
17 Comments:
Well, seeing a large number of women in such getup is better than seeing a number of large women in it. Since you went to a mall, I assume Lynn was with you and that hindered further investigation into this topical issue.
Might have been the look 2 years ago, isn't that how long style's take to get to the midwest?
If I was up there, I'd be pimpin all them ho's.
-Fillmore
She was there. She didn't notice. I probably should have made her my official advance scout.
TYFCB
We were just at the St. Louis Zoo last Sunday, and I noticed the same thing. I was wondering why women would wear such attire to the zoo???? Most of them were sitting on the bench rubbing their feet. I was fine in tennis shoes and a tee shirt. I really don't think the animals care.
So if women wear high heels... they are considered a "ho"???
How interesting you would say that......
Anon,
If I had said that, it would indeed have been interesting. Since I didn't, it's a no hitter.
BTW, "Pretty Woman" has been out for some time on DVD. Gives you an idea of the name for look that includes shorts and high, high heels.
TYFCB
You just said it.. "Pretty Woman", high, high heels, shorts, ho.....what's the difference? And what's BTW?
Anon,
It's a "look", just like "Metrosexual". Nobody called anybody anything.
Especially on the Web, we use shorthand terms from time to time. Sheesh! Lighten up.
TYFCB
You may want to read your original post...Take some ownership, Mel.......
Gosh, I read it. I even sat on it for about twelve hours because I thought some politically correct twit might get excited about it.
I described a look. I called no individual person anything. If you have trouble getting your brain cells around that, you're stubborn, stupid or both.
Feel free to think I was tasteless but I didn't call anybody anything. Either give it up or explain yourself cogently.
TYFCB
O.K. See if you can wrap your brain around this. I did not call you names or dismiss you as a "twit" for calling your attention to something you wrote that concerns me. And I'm not the only one. When you call a "look"
a "LA HO", you reduce a person to a sex object.. And that makes it easier to hurt.... As in sex hassment or sex assault. And this No Way equates with labeling someone a "metrosexual" And as a person who ran for State's Atty...... This concerns me greatly. You can spin it any way you want.. Show your post to a person who respects women and see what they say. I thoughtyou could at lest discuss this is a rational, intellgent matter without the name calling and the disrepect. I guess I was wrong.
Anon 0927,
I've spent most of my life vindicating the rights of women in the workplace. I was State's Attorney when Quanada was created and my Victim/Witness Coordinator was on the Board for it. That is the Victim/Witness Coordinator in the Department that never existed in the State's Attorney's office until we created it. So I really don't need to go looking for someone who "respects women".
I didn't call you a twit, I was describing the hypothetical person I was considering while sitting on the text. That sentence is pretty clear.
I used some adjectives for anyone who couldn't appreciate the difference between describing a style or look and labelling a person. I don't think that was off base but it could have been written in more polite way. A few years ago, a fashion description "Queer Eye" was kind of a compliment.
This argument came up three or four times from an anon and I assumed they were all the same anon. Repeating essentially the same conclusionary argument three or four times is not exactly useful. Perhaps that was wrong and I became too impatient. I'm sorry if I was peevish with you or you took it that way but I just think you're overreacting to something that's not in the text of the original post.
Disrespect, as you call it, was probably generated by your own intolerance. You have your view of what I wrote and you're gonna be offended no matter how I "spin" this. Meaning anything I say is "spin" unless it agrees with you and therefore there's no possibility I could have a valid argument. Why should I discuss anything with anybody who has already told me there is no other argument but hers? How could we have a discussion when you have already told me you're deaf to my position. Political Correctness is one of the handiest ways to be intolerant because you get to wear the white hat and feel just swell about opposing something you feel oughta be stamped out.
This is particularly so if you are anon 1357, as well. You started by putting words in my mouth that I never said. When your starting point is intellectually dishonest, how useful can your conclusions become?
As you say, nothing I say or do will convince you of anything but your ingrained beliefs.
Then, if You're also 1337, you're calling me names. I'll never know because I don't examine ISP's, don't know who anybody is. If that's you (and I think it is) then it's ok for you to call me names that equal "bigot" but it's not OK for me to use adjectives to describe your closed minded position.
Your position boils down to three things:
I called some woman a foul name--false premise
I was rude in answering criticism--maybe but only in kind with the "Mel" crack.
The terminology is universally offensive because you say it is--never a valid argument.
So we can have a discussion that will enlighten no one and from which you have already said you will take nothing or we can just agree to disagree.
OH, BTW is a standard internet abbreviation for "By the way". Another one you'll see here is "OTOH" for "on the other hand". From your approach, you won't have much cause to use the latter. It doesn't seem in your world there is any other hand.
I'm sorry I can't satisfy you. I'd rather be universally loved but opinion writing doesn't really lead to that.
Have a Nice Weekend and rest assured I'm out of the fashion commenting business for a while.
TYFCB
I continue to be amazed to learn that some popular phrases used in casual writing or conversation are offensive to others. Recently, a friend of mine called to my attention that the phrase "rule of thumb" was offensive to many women and considered anti-feminist because it apparently came from an old rule in England allowing a husband to beat his wife with a switch no thicker than the husband's thumb. That one just blew me away. I've used that phrase for years and had no clue it might be considered offensive.
There's a lot of bear traps out there. I knew there was risk in this one but I've seen women's magazines (where I get my hair cut) discussing the "Trailer Trash" look, the "sleaze tease" look and a women's golf magazine (now defunct) wrote about the after hours "cart wench" look.
Use of social shorthand terms can cause problems and on this one it's probably cost me more time than it saved.
I just cued up "Garden Party". I wish Ricky Nelson were still writing songs. His evolved version would have given us a lot of wisdom. "You can't please everyone....." You can finish it.
TYFCB
Having sat on your "text" for several hours I would like to respond with a clear head. First of all let me apologize for stooping to the level of insults by making the "Mel" referral, that truly was inappropriate. Having said that, I have to commend you on your chosen profession. Your use of double-talk indicates you would do well in the court-room, however I am sure that it can get in the way in other areas of your life.
I like the way you have twisted all of this around to make it seem that I am the one with the problem and that I somehow am being offensive and "close-minded" by expressing my views. I just responded to what you put out there and all of a sudden I am the one trying your patience. That sounds very arrogant and more than a little condescending. As for your long-winded diatribe where I become an intolerant, name-calling oaf...Bravo!! A very effective method used universally by attorneys especially when they are trying to draw attention away from the facts and fire up emotions. Your passion and theatrics were much appreciated. I could almost believe what you said until I got to the part where you assume that because I hold these beliefs I am a woman. In case you are confused I refer to the sentence where you call me a "her". (Wouldn't presume to misquote you now!!!) Lastly, I am not going to validate or waste my time trying to argue the "universal" meaning of the word "ho" and the way you referenced women with a certain look by using that term. The reality is if anyone called a women that you respected and loved a "ho" I am sure it would be offensive to you and your loved one. Having said all of this I appreciate your ill-humored attempts to make me look like a closed-minded, intolerant person, you have shown your true colors very clearly. I think in the future you might want to take the plank out of your eye before you try to remove the slinter from mine.
Apology accepted.
In kind, I was probably too edgy the last two times.
A thoughtful approach is always welcome here and I do like your turn of several phrases here.
Still, it wasn't me that said I wasn't open to what you said. It was you who declared, in advance, anything I had to say about the matter "spin".
I persist in saying I didn't call anybody any names. I described a look. You see something else. I'm sorry I can't convince you otherwise.
Hope you'll come by and discuss other topics.
TYFCB
Post a Comment
<< Home